» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: Was the War in Vietnam winnable?

Written By: AndrewTalkingWalnut on 01/28/04 at 08:55 a.m.

Using Conventional Warfare, could America have won the Vietnam war?
JTF.org says it was possible, but that the "Leftists" tied the hands of the Military,
Just like the Leftist in Israel, tie the hands of the IDF, and prevent them from properly dealing with the Terrorists.

Subject: Re: Was the War in Vietnam winnable?

Written By: AndrewTalkingWalnut on 01/28/04 at 08:56 a.m.

And let's not forget
Vietnam II, which is going on right now in America

"The War on Drugs"
The book

10 Things you can't say in America, by Larry Elders details this.

Subject: Re: Was the War in Vietnam winnable?

Written By: LyricBoy on 01/28/04 at 09:41 a.m.

I think that the Vietnam War was unwinnable unless we had nuked the entire country and killed EVERYBODY.

It started as a civil war... North versus South, and the government of South Vietnam was hirtorically "corrupt", so anybody fighting to preserve the South's way of "government" was supporting corruption.  Fighting for the South was not like fighting for a "noble cause".

Heck, John F. Kennedy supported the overthrow of the corrupt South Vietnam government in a coup.  Next goivernment was more of same, and did NOT have the support of the population, either.

In Vietnam, there were many Southerners who WANTED to unify with the North under communism.  Their life under South Vietnam government sucked, so why not try communism?  South Vietnam was not just attacked by North Vietnam.  The Viet Kong were southerners fighting for communism, guerrilas.

Most military people will tell you that fighting somebody ELSE'S civil war is dangerous and fruitless.  And that is the danger that we now face in Iraq.  With Saddam out of the way, Iraq faces a 3-way strife between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.  We need to get the heck out of there becfore we get caught in somebody ELSE'S civil war.

So... in my opinion it was unwinnable because in order to "win", you have to win the "hearts and minds" of the population.  And we did not due to the historical corruption in the South.

Opposing viewpoints welcomed!

Subject: Re: Was the War in Vietnam winnable?

Written By: LyricBoy on 01/28/04 at 09:43 a.m.


Quoting:
And let's not forget
Vietnam II, which is going on right now in America

"The War on Drugs"End Quote



Vietnam II, "The War on Drugs", is also unwinnable and is a waste of money.

Legalize drugs and take the money (thus the criminal element) out of it.  Anybody who wants to get cocaine today knows how to get it anyway.

Subject: Re: Was the War in Vietnam winnable?

Written By: bj26 on 01/28/04 at 11:09 a.m.

Corruption to many on Earth is actually a way of life, even survival.  Having lived in the 3rd world for several years with the poorest country fork, corruption was non-existent.

Quoting:
It started as a civil war... North versus South, and the government of South Vietnam was hirtorically "corrupt", so anybody fighting to preserve the South's way of "government" was supporting corruption.  Fighting for the South was not like fighting for a "noble cause".

Heck, John F. Kennedy supported the overthrow of the corrupt South Vietnam government in a coup. End Quote

Subject: Re: Was the War in Vietnam winnable?

Written By: gumbypiz on 01/28/04 at 11:16 a.m.


Quoting:
Using Conventional Warfare, could America have won the Vietnam war?
JTF.org says it was possible, but that the "Leftists" tied the hands of the Military,
Just like the Leftist in Israel, tie the hands of the IDF, and prevent them from properly dealing with the Terrorists.
End Quote


Man, you're opening a very messy can of worms..
First who do you mean by Leftists? Hippies, democrats, LBJ, Nixion?
Vietnam wasn't a war we were in to win in the first place,  in the conventional or normal sense...France had already been there with no success and Ike's miliatary advisors was to help shore up the South Viet. goverment.
The entire situation was SNAFU'd from the start and long before the US got involved.
No ones hands were tied, it just wasn't in the intial plans to for us to fight "their" war..like LyricBoy said, these people didn't want our help and WANTED to join the north..the people we were helping were coming back to fight for the north at night.
Within that kind of situation, you can't win..

Subject: Re: Was the War in Vietnam winnable?

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 01/28/04 at 10:33 p.m.

In a word: No.

We would have had to secure the entire country and made it an imperial province of the United States.  Then we would have spent billions upon billions on a puppet government and an imperial military presence to force our will and cow the unwilling populace.  And for what?

I cannot emphasize enough the unfathomable human suffering the Vietnam conflict visited upon the people of South East Asia.  From napalm to carpet bombing, we cannot imagine such terror.  Southeast Asians were toughened by centuries of bloody conflict, but even they had their spirits broken by the bloodbath of the early '70s.  Not to mention what Pol Pot did to the Cambodians.  

In retrospect, we got a much better deal.  Communism failed in the Soviet Union, and is slowly dying in China.  Saigon may be Ho Chi Minh City, but so what.  Corporations like Nike get to exploit cheap labor over there and we get our empire on the cheap!

Even Robert McNamara admits now we botched it from the start.  Oh, you notice his kids weren't over there.  Neither was George W.  I don't blame them, really.  Lots of eligable recruits got out of the draft via power and privilege, medical excuses, or student deferments.  My father didn't go, he was in grad school (on the other hand, he was in his late 20s when the draft really started heating up, so he wasn't prime cut), if you had a card to play, you played it.  

It's important to bear in mind who did go.  Yes, there were privileged John Kerry types who could have gotten out of it but went into the thick of it anyway.  But most were poor kids who couldn't get out of the draft, or volunteered for the armed forces because it was their best opportunity.  When they came home with their bodies torn up and their minds scrambled, Uncle Sam turned his back on them.

To this day you'll find paranoid John Bircher types (especially online) who feel emasculated by our loss in Vietnam.  They are the only ones still dastardly enough to blame the protest movement and the counterculture for it.  You noticed we have fascists who like to say those who object to our current military actions "give aid and comfort to the enemy."  On the other side, there are aging hipsters, eyes glossy with nostalgia, who unduly credit their own rock-throwing and rock 'n' roll for stopping the Vietnam war.

I think the military failure was due to strategic impossibility at the core.

Subject: Re: Was the War in Vietnam winnable?

Written By: ROCKY on 02/02/04 at 08:43 p.m.

ASK THIS QUESTION AT ....THE WALL.....IN WASHINGTON...AND THEN ASK AT WHAT COST....IF ANYTHING I WOULD HOPE WE LEARN HOW HIGH THE COST....OF ANY WAR....ON ALL SIDES....